If you want a good ambient light rejection screen look at: Stewart Firehawk (solid contrast boost without the spark-lies), the hardest part in making a screen material that gives contrast enhancement properties is to keep the defects as minimal as possible. Stewart has that done with the Firehawk. SI has simply covered over their short comings with great marketing. They should be applauded for that.

Sorry but i totally disagree when it comes to the firehawk and lightscatter.
The SI BD out performs the Firehawk when it comes to light scatter.
all the testing i have done of the bd vs the firehawk that was on thing that was a totally WOW factor of the BD vs the Firehawk.

I also found that the Black levels where also better with the bd from my testing..,

To get true blacks you need to start with a black screen,,
how can a you expect to get amazing black levels if you start with a White or grey screen and then use a white bright light from a projector
Just as stated above the bd eliminates the need for masking ..
BD No Masking Required....

My BD3 1.4 gain works as advertised with none of the artifacts listed above. No more masking and with my intended Epson 61000 purchase, it should look amazing.
John

John,

I don't want to be accused of doubting any end user's word, but I find that a little hard to accept since in the Demo Booth at CEDIA, very obvious "speckled" artifacts could be seen in any lightly colored area, and were made very much more obvious during scenes when those areas were involved with any "panning" effect. I heard comments made about such...and the presenter stated that they had been reduced. He never said eliminated.

I personally was viewing those artifacts from a distance of 15' so I speak from my own recent experience. All the examples shown were of the latest generation. To be fair, yes, the issues were not as bad as before, but in no manner, way, shape or form have those issues been eliminated.

If the content on screen is dynamic and bright....graininess will be obvious to any onlooker.

As to if that aspect of the viewing experience will / would matter to any specific individual is to be out of necessity left open to conjecture. Plainly stated, if someone shells out the required cash for a BD, then they probably already know there are certain aspects (...if not entirely 'drawbacks...) to be accepted to obtain the performance the screens are most noted for providing.

What would be...and is detrimental is for anyone, Dealers included, to irrevocably state that no such issues exist. That opens the door for dissatisfaction, if only because there is a difference between what was promoted as being fact, and the facts as they are observed by the end user.

Frasia,

The abject need for masking has been greatly reduced....but if ambient light is present, there is still a noticeable difference between the Black Trim...or a darkened wall, than there is with the "Black Bars". Yes...they look decidedly as being a ultra dark Gray...but Black? Not.

Now in total dark...or a very near total darkness, yep...they do look completely invisible. Anyone who sees the BD under those circumstances would be telling an outright fib to say otherwise.

I don't want to be accused of doubting any end user's word, but I find that a little hard to accept since in the Demo Booth at CEDIA, very obvious "speckled" artifacts could be seen in any lightly colored area, and were made very much more obvious during scenes when those areas were involved with any "panning" effect. I heard comments made about such...and the presenter stated that they had been reduced. He never said eliminated.

I personally was viewing those artifacts from a distance of 15' so I speak from my own recent experience. All the examples shown were of the latest generation. To be fair, yes, the issues were not as bad as before, but in no manner, way, shape or form have those issues been eliminated.

If the content on screen is dynamic and bright....graininess will be obvious to any onlooker.

As to if that aspect of the viewing experience will / would matter to any specific individual is to be out of necessity left open to conjecture. Plainly stated, if someone shells out the required cash for a BD, then they probably already know there are certain aspects (...if not entirely 'drawbacks...) to be accepted to obtain the performance the screens are most noted for providing.

What would be...and is detrimental is for anyone, Dealers included, to irrevocably state that no such issues exist. That opens the door for dissatisfaction, if only because there is a difference between what was promoted as being fact, and the facts as they are observed by the end user.

Miss Man
What is the Deal Here?

Dont know why you continue to post so much Negitive stuff about this screen,
We all know you are not a fan
Why to continue to post the same negitive stuff over and over I dont get it
The Sad thing about this is
there are other members who are owners of the bd screen
who are little scared to post postitive comments because of the negitive posts that are going on in this thread..
Something seriously needs to be done and this needs to be finally addressed...
Enough is enough
Lets move on to continue to help other members in this thread
to help them enjoy the BD Screen

I agree with Mississippi man in terms of SI marketing. Also the spark-lies and screen graininess problems have not been addressed. What boggles my mind is how they managed to sell everyone SI is amazing with all its apparent flaws, great marketing for you.

If you want a good ambient light rejection screen look at: Stewart Firehawk (solid contrast boost without the spark-lies).

If you want the best contrast enhancing screen that is ISF certified and no sparkles or flaws go with DNP Supernova. SI cannot get ISF certification due to their flaws.

You can also add to the list the Skyline, I will own a 91" and i can tell you that does not suffer from any of the BD defects, no sparkles, no speckles, no dreaded "Dirty Window" effect, only very good ambient light rejection and an amazing Ansi contrast...

I don't want to be accused of doubting any end user's word, but I find that a little hard to accept since in the Demo Booth at CEDIA, very obvious "speckled" artifacts could be seen in any lightly colored area, and were made very much more obvious during scenes when those areas were involved with any "panning" effect. I heard comments made about such...and the presenter stated that they had been reduced. He never said eliminated.

I personally was viewing those artifacts from a distance of 15' so I speak from my own recent experience. All the examples shown were of the latest generation. To be fair, yes, the issues were not as bad as before, but in no manner, way, shape or form have those issues been eliminated.

If the content on screen is dynamic and bright....graininess will be obvious to any onlooker.

As to if that aspect of the viewing experience will / would matter to any specific individual is to be out of necessity left open to conjecture. Plainly stated, if someone shells out the required cash for a BD, then they probably already know there are certain aspects (...if not entirely 'drawbacks...) to be accepted to obtain the performance the screens are most noted for providing.

What would be...and is detrimental is for anyone, Dealers included, to irrevocably state that no such issues exist. That opens the door for dissatisfaction, if only because there is a difference between what was promoted as being fact, and the facts as they are observed by the end user.

Frasia,

The abject need for masking has been greatly reduced....but if ambient light is present, there is still a noticeable difference between the Black Trim...or a darkened wall, than there is with the "Black Bars". Yes...they look decidedly as being a ultra dark Gray...but Black? Not.

Now in total dark...or a very near total darkness, yep...they do look completely invisible. Anyone who sees the BD under those circumstances would be telling an outright fib to say otherwise.

Miss Man,
I do view in a completely light controlled room so that explains my observations. I also presently use a BenQ W5000 which is no light canon and has above average contrast so in this case it made a significant diff. I sit 16 ft from the screen and cannot detect sparkles, perhaps because I don't have a high lumen output. I saw this screen demoed at my dealers but their projector was so cranked up in brightness and sharpness that what looked like sparkles may have been other artifacts. I did not see this effect on mine, using the same source material and I was looking for it.
John

Using a low lumen PJ can indeed make quite the difference. Thank you for that insight, and I do hope you also understand my position.

Frasia,

Can you honestly say anything I related was out of line, in error, or made with evil intent? If my crime is that i don't support a few of your stated claims, then yes...I'm guilty as charged. But it's not a hanging offense.

If I was the ONLY person to note the discrepancies in what is stated to be, and what really is, you'd have a stiff leg under you to stand on.

But I am not. So your looking pretty wobbly there.......

Frankly, it's the commentary and claims you yourself have made in the past and continue to make that fuels responses like mine and others. Overt promotion and excessive claims, even if made in the ecstasy pf loving something as much as you obviously do, do more harm than good on a Public Forum where all such claims and statements are open for review and comment.

I'll say this...you certainly are purposefully directed down the road you've chosen. But the speed your trying to maintain is fraught with potential trouble because of the Potholes your comments present. Now I'm not a Traffic Cop...just another Driver watching your Hub caps flyin' off your wheels.

Present your BD case with a little temperance, and you'll be surprised how quickly much of what your concerned about would vanish out of hand. Really...it's not so much about the BD's performance as it is about how it is being presented.

As usual (and we've gone over this numerous times before) such a statement is oversimplified to the point of being false.

In terms of the brightness of the image, black levels included, gain is gain.
It doesn't matter how dark the substrate is!

If the BD .8 is in fact .8 gain, then a projector's black levels should be no darker on the BD than on a .8 gain screen with a lighter substrate. No matter how dark the substrate, if you ADD enough reflective coating to get up to .8 gain, that brightens the entire image to .8 gain, including the black levels. That is what GAIN MEANS. It's why we have the number in the first place. If a black diamond screen actually produced much deeper blacks, that would be because it is significantly below the rated gain, and is simply making the image dimmer. (And in which case, anyone trying to use proper calculations to get the screen brightness they want, would be in big trouble when they receive their BD screen).

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraisa

To get true blacks you need to start with a black screen,,

You perpetuate the misunderstanding that the BD screens are very dark colored to get deeper black levels. That is false: the reason for the dark substrate is for AMBIENT LIGHT REJECTION. The room, from an angle, "sees" the screen as black. But the added gain coating focuses the light to the viewer for a "normal" image brightness.

The only way you get a darker black level (presuming you have light control already) is by dimming the image. Closing down the iris of a projector does the same thing with black levels. So does adding ND filters to make the image darker....

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraisa

Just as stated above the bd eliminates the need for masking ..
BD No Masking Required....

Again, false.

That is, if you are wishing to imply a BD screen makes projected black bars (top/bottom for scope on a 16:9 screen) invisible. Admittedly this is where some degree of advantage happens with the BD's hotspotting. Given brightness drops off obviously from the center to the edges, the black bar areas may be a bit darker than a more evenly reflecting screen. But not invisible, as there is still the gain on every BD screen.

I could easily see the black projected bars in many scenes on every BD screen I've viewed, and with JVC projectors as well. The "need" for masking is ultimately subjective, based on how much one cares about these things. But having lived with actual masking and seen BD screens in action, as good as they are for light rejection, I personally would certainly require masking.

To Harkness,
The one thing that helps the BD produce awesome black levels is the fact that the screen starts with black color and not white or dark shade of grey.
And when we turn out the lights the ceiling above the screen and the wall besides the screen is a non issue because of the reduced light scatter.
Everyone who owns a BD loves this benifit.
When i watch a movie lights off all i see is the screen even the frame in my room dissapears Lights Off.

Then Lights on the black levels of the 1.4 and .8 are also very very good.
And we get non faded images Lights on.

I know one guy who bought a Stewart Greyhawk with a JVC projector and
he has an ambient light room,
Totally $ wasted because it was the wrong fabric of screen...
If he had of listened to me and got a Black Diamond he would be watching NFL this sunday Lights on having awesome Black levels...
But instead he is out at the local Hardware store buying paint to paint his room black....
Something that his wife is really not happy with....

So you could say Black diamond screen = Happy wife/ happy life...he he

Fellow BD2 .8 gain guys,
How do you like your screen? any pluses or minuses when it comes to this specific screen? I ask because there is one for sale here on AVS classifieds, and I might have the budget to do it, IF I get a more vibrant picture in all ways. The .8 gain has me scared though. Please let me know, as I am starting to get screen samples, but will not get the BD sample till late next week. MANY THANKS FOR FEEDBACK.....

Fellow BD2 .8 gain guys,
How do you like your screen? any pluses or minuses when it comes to this specific screen? I ask because there is one for sale here on AVS classifieds, and I might have the budget to do it, IF I get a more vibrant picture in all ways. The .8 gain has me scared though. Please let me know, as I am starting to get screen samples, but will not get the BD sample till late next week. MANY THANKS FOR FEEDBACK.....

I have seen the BD2 .8 gain on display before and the BD3 .8 gain is alot better at handling Sparkle...
The G3 revision is worth the investment in my opinion

I kinda feel like I was the guinea pig for a frameless BDII.... Months and months ago I ordered a custom frameless BDII for our restaurant. Install will be the 26th of this month. A custom sub-frame had to be built to support the BDII material. Here is some pics of the sub-frame.

Among the multiple mounting options include recessed (unframed), flush-to, projected off the wall, or flying from cables for an incredibly sleek appearance.

...what's the meaning of "flying from cables"?

I would like to have a screen that's to be positioned in front of my plasma, yet be able to shift the screen away easily so that I can view TV programs on the plasma. If I were to mount the screen behind the plasma, that would require a hydraulic jack for the plasma...which is cumbersome.

I would like to have a screen that's to be positioned in front of my plasma, yet be able to shift the screen away easily so that I can view TV programs on the plasma. If I were to mount the screen behind the plasma, that would require a hydraulic jack for the plasma...which is cumbersome.